[GingisK]

You may have missed my point. Britain adopted military policies to cease hostilities as early as possible in order to prevent deep resentment and ill-will in the populations of the defeated. That was intended to make it easier to establish trade relationships with the vanquished. This was taught in the British Admiralty School for quite some time. Our officers were not aware of that important policy until many years after the American Revolution when we were invited to send naval officers for training. That policy contributed to Britain's decision to give up the Colonies.

That policy provided some guidance to the United States, resulting in keeping their emperor out of a nuclear blast.

I was answering the question "Why didn't we nuke Tokyo?", not designating our closest friends.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“resulting in keeping their emperor out of a nuclear blast.”

You missed my point. ;-) The emperor is the one who could have stopped/prevented the whole Pearl Harbor attack/war with the USA. That is exactly why he should have been nuked. However, because he was not nuked then he should have been hung with the rest of the war criminals and Japan should have become, as I said before, either a vast wasteland or a shallow sea. ;-)

Instead, they let him live, keep his post and prosper and later for Japan to prosper while competing with the USA on the economic/financial world level. How has Toyota/Honda, et al, helped USA automobile manufacturing?

How have Japan’s electronics and computer companies helped the USA economy?

How many USA jobs have been lost because we ‘helped’ Japan after WWII?

Politicians have always prevented total victory in all wars. Simply because Britain did it does not mean that the USA should do it. I repeat, Britain should be considered to be our enemy.

In fact, the best approach and should be the policy of the USA gov’t that we simply have no ‘friends’ in the world and treat every other country on the planet as enemies.